ArticleJournal of the anus, rectum and colon2026
Diagnostic Performance of Non-Colonographic Routine CT for Detecting Advanced Colorectal Cancer.
Article in Journal of the anus, rectum and colon, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Advanced-stage colorectal cancers (CRCs) are occasionally detected on routine abdominal CT scans performed in daily clinical practice. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of routine CT scans for detecting advanced CRCs. Methods: We studied patients who underwent routine CT examinations for gastrointestinal symptoms or abnormalities between March 2015 and April 2025, and who subsequently underwent colonoscopy within six months. CT images were interpreted by two radiologists as part of routine clinical practice. Colonoscopic and pathological findings were used as reference standards for advanced CRC (p-T2 or deeper). Diagnostic performance was expressed as percentages with 95% confidence intervals. Results: A total of 350 patients were reviewed (female 44.6%; mean age 64.6 ± 17.2 years; intravenous contrast administration 44.6%). Colonoscopy identified 46 advanced CRCs (median size 56 mm; range 16-105 mm; T2 n=1, T3 n=16, T4 n=18, unknown n=11; proximal colon n=13, distal colon n=16, rectum n=17). Except for one CRC obscured by a large gastric gastrointestinal stromal tumor, all remaining 45 CRCs were suspected on CT (sensitivity 97.8% [88.5-99.9]). Among 304 patients without advanced CRC, 292 were correctly classified as negative (specificity 96.1% [93.2-97.9]). The positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and overall accuracy were 78.9% [66.1-88.6], 99.7% [98.1-100], and 96.3% [93.7-98.0], respectively. In subgroup analysis stratified by contrast enhancement, diagnostic accuracy was 96.8% [92.7-99.0] with contrast and 95.9% [92.0-98.2] without contrast (p=0.65). Conclusions: Routine abdominal CT without colonographic technique demonstrated excellent diagnostic performance for detecting advanced CRC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.